6 12. On May 14, 2010, the representatives informed the Tribunal of the holding of a hearing on April 7, 2010, before the First Civil Chamber of the Provincial Court of Pichincha, with regard to the expropriation proceedings that are being carried out within the domestic jurisdiction. In this sense, on May 26, 2010, the Secretariat requested observations from the State and the Commission. On June 29, 2010, the Commission informed it had no observations to present in this regard. On July 8, 2010, the State expressed to the Court the need for an international ruling regarding the status in which the local proceedings must remain regarding the purpose of the litigation that, in a subsidiary manner, is being heard by it. Additionally, it reiterated some observations made by the Municipality of the Metropolitan District of Quito and referred to the interests. A) Regarding the possibility of an international expert assessment 13. During the public hearing held on September 24, 2009, the representatives and the State mentioned they had reached certain agreements, among them, that the Court had enough evidentiary elements to set the just compensation that should be granted in compliance with the Judgment issued by the Court on May 6, 2008. However, they expressed that, if considered necessary, they accepted that the Tribunal appoint an international entity to carry out an expert assessment for that purpose. Additionally, they stated their willingness to pay in equal parts the costs that could be generated by this possible expert opinion, being the State who would initially pay the totality and that it would later deduct the corresponding fifty per cent that had to be paid by Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga (hereinafter “María Salvador Chiriboga” or Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga”), when payment of just compensation was made. For this, they offered to provide to the Court a list of the people or international bodies that could offer the mentioned expert report. On September 25, 2009, the Secretariat, following instructions of the Full Court, referred to said public hearing, and, in consideration of that expressed by the representatives and the State, informed them that the Tribunal considered it useful and appropriate to request to the representatives and the State a list of the names of the possible people or international entities that could carry out the expert opinion. 14. On September 30, 2009, the representatives and the State forwarded, respectively, the names of the possible international institutions that they considered adequate for the execution of the possible expert opinion. On October 2, 2009, the Secretariat, following instructions of the then President, requested that the parties present, no later than October 9, 2009, as were the case, the observations considered appropriate regarding the mentioned lists. 15. On October 6, 2009, the Commission informed that it did not have observations to present regarding the mentioned list. On October 9th the representatives filed their observations to the list of institutions proposed by the State. Finally, on October 29, 2009, the State filed its observations to the list of the possible people or international entities offered by the representatives. 16. On November 18, 2009, the Secretariat, following instructions of the Court, referred to the lists of expert witnesses presented by the representatives and the State, in which it indicated that after considering said lists it found that there could be coincidences regarding the name of an expert that works for a company proposed by the representatives, whom is, at the same time, an affiliate of an entity suggested by the State. Based on the aforementioned, it asked the representatives and the State that it present, no late than December 3, 2009, its observations regarding the possible coincidence between the entities proposed by them. 17. On November 30, 2009, the representatives ratified that stated in the public hearing held on September 24, 2009, regarding the appointment of an international entity to carry out an assessment of the property. In this sense, they stated that there was a coincidence between the entities proposed, given that the State indicated a company as the potential